Home

What do you think?
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  Last >>
 
Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics

View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 2:04 pm
simcha2 wrote:
I sorry you see being fearful of something and having that pointed out as bigotry.

You are not demonstrating the existence -- let alone the lack of validity -- of some inchoate fear of the "other." You are repeating offensive rhetoric that is personally demeaning to millions of people simply because you disagree with them politically.

It is bigotry and hate, and the fact that you aim it at one group rather than another doesn't excuse it. It's time we started treating it as such.

simcha2 wrote:
It's only those on the right that are claiming that she is the new face of the Democrats. This serves their purpose (look at those crazy Democrats - they're going to turn the whole country socialist). Playing on fear.

Well, AOC and a number of other Democrats extol "Democratic Socialism" -- meaning, I guess, that they're in favor of having us vote to starve to death equally.

So if you consider opposition to this to be "playing on fear," that suggests that either you think that AOC, et. al., are lying or that you think socialism is nothing to fear. Which is it?
Back to top

simcha2




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 2:17 pm
Quote:
You are not demonstrating the existence -- let alone the lack of validity -- of some inchoate fear of the "other." You are repeating offensive rhetoric that is personally demeaning to millions of people simply because you disagree with them politically.


I was writing quoting the president. I didn't say "all members of Trump's base can't form rational arguments and are driven by fear" which is what you seem to be suggesting I said.

I said that Trump riles his base by playing on their fears. I quoted him once above to demonstrate that. I can pull up plenty of more examples of him playing on fears. (Even his continual attacks on "fake media" are an example, as is the slogan "make America great again", not to mention the conflation of late term abortion with abortion in general).

I have made no comment on AOC's beliefs, I stated very clearly I don't know much about them, she is one, freshman senator and, as such, not so relevant.

I did state that conflating her opinions with "Democrats" is playing on fear.

And in answer to your question, we already have limited socialism (police, army, etc. Public schools)and having grown up in a country with universal healthcare I think it's superior to the travesty of the current us system.

The amount of socialist enterprises is a continuum not the all or nothing that is presented (again, playing on fears).
Back to top

dancingqueen




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 2:38 pm
leah233 wrote:
Actually, it was the Democratic National Committee chair, Tom Perez, who was the first to call her "the future of our party" and coin that phrase about her

He was not alone among the Democrats to say that.


Many Democrats, including key Democratic leaders are not such big fans of AOC.

https://www.politico.com/story.....nt-1093728
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 3:08 pm
simcha2 wrote:
I said that Trump riles his base by playing on their fears. I quoted him once above to demonstrate that. I can pull up plenty of more examples of him playing on fears. (Even his continual attacks on "fake media" are an example, as is the slogan "make America great again", not to mention the conflation of late term abortion with abortion in general).

How do you distinguish "playing on fears" from "describing a fearsome situation"? "Playing on fears" suggests that somehow those fears are illegitimate or wrongly focused. Indeed, the examples you gave -- fear of the "other" -- come straight from President Obama's playbook.

It is a way of shutting down various conversations, and that's precisely how President Obama used it. It's a way of making legitimate or even semi-legitimate concerns appear to have ominous overtones. And it's a way to be racist and classist without being publicly shamed.

Let's talk about his declaration of emergency:

When an Imamother whose child has been molested argues for a zero tolerance policy for perpetrators of CAS, do you tell her she's "playing on fear" because the actual percentage of kids s-xually abused by their rebbeim is relatively small? That, actually, a child is more likely to be abused by a family member or trusted family friend?

Every President during the last 30 years has claimed that there is an "emergency situation" at our southern border, and no one seriously disagreed. Yet all of a sudden, people want to discuss whether illegal immigrants are statistically more likely to commit a crime than legal immigrants. All of a sudden, Trump is the bad guy for pointing out that even though we'll never reach a zero tolerance policy for bad people entering our country, we should aspire to that.

And simply saying that is "playing on fear"?

Now, if someone is so obsessed with the fear of her child being abused or the fear of being the victim of a criminal illegal immigrant that it disrupts her life -- then, yes, that's inappropriate. But if this "fear" involves being careful and taking precautions to avoid having bad things happen, that's not "fear"; that's "responsibility."

simcha2 wrote:
And in answer to your question, we already have limited socialism (police, army, etc. Public schools)and having grown up in a country with universal healthcare I think it's superior to the travesty of the current us system.

The amount of socialist enterprises is a continuum not the all or nothing that is presented (again, playing on fears).

I think you need to read a little more about what socialism is and isn't. Socialism does not mean voluntarily pooling resources for projects of mutual benefit that an individual would find it difficult to undertake.

Nor does it mean spreading risk across a large pool of people who have voluntarily agreed to share it.

Socialism has two very distinct elements: top-down control of resource allocation and top-down predetermined economic outcomes.

Those two features fly in the face of everything we know about economics and human nature. Socialism requires people to exchange the value of their labor and their natural self-interest for the promise of being fed, housed, and more-or-less taken care of. There's another word for that kind of a deal.
Back to top

simcha2




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 3:25 pm
I think you're mixing socialism and communism. (And btw, my examples even with that do fit your criteria). In terms of economic example how are public schools different to universal healthcare? Or a police force?


In terms of your asking the difference between playing on fears and describing a fearsome situation, your example proves the point.

(I'm on my phone and it's tedious to keep going back and forth to post quotes so sorry if I'm paraphrasing)

Of course an imamother A whose child has been abused is going to have an outsized fear of child abuse. So if we post on imamother, never let your child go stay at grandparents because look what happened to imamother A. That is playing on fears. Saying child abuse can happen anywhere so be vigilant and listen to your child. Is describing a fearsome situation.

Trump calling the situation border an invasion of murderers is closer to the first example.

As for Obama's playbook. Honestly don't have a comment one way or the other. Didn't vote for him (either time), but can't say I was struck by the playing up of fears. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just didn't notice it.
Back to top

amother




Navy


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 3:30 pm
Someone who thinks that Trump is smart is not someone whose opinion I can trust on anything, nor someone with whom I’d even get into a discussion with.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 3:46 pm
simcha2 wrote:
I think you're mixing socialism and communism. (And btw, my examples even with that do fit your criteria). In terms of economic example how are public schools different to universal healthcare? Or a police force?

Huh? How does pooling resources within a community (via taxes) to provide policing fit the criteria of top-down allocation of resources and top-down determination of economic outcomes?

You are correct, however, that there are many permutations of socialism, and some are definitely more laudable than others. The difference, however, is whether one regards "a little socialism" as a wonderful thing or a necessary evil.

simcha2 wrote:
As for Obama's playbook. Honestly don't have a comment one way or the other. Didn't vote for him (either time), but can't say I was struck by the playing up of fears. Doesn't mean it didn't happen. I just didn't notice it.

This is what I find most fear-inducing . . . most of us didn't.

So far, my fears have been mongered far less by President Trump than by President Obama.
Back to top

ectomorph




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 3:49 pm
Fox wrote:
I think you need to read a little more about what socialism is and isn't. Socialism does not mean voluntarily pooling resources for projects of mutual benefit that an individual would find it difficult to undertake.

Nor does it mean spreading risk across a large pool of people who have voluntarily agreed to share it.

Socialism has two very distinct elements: top-down control of resource allocation and top-down predetermined economic outcomes.

Those two features fly in the face of everything we know about economics and human nature. Socialism requires people to exchange the value of their labor and their natural self-interest for the promise of being fed, housed, and more-or-less taken care of. There's another word for that kind of a deal.

Being afraid of a dangerous idea like national socialism (ie Nazi ism - where the word Nazi. Comes from) is highly intelligent.

Fox, I wish I had your way with words and sources.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 3:54 pm
amother wrote:
Someone who thinks that Trump is smart is not someone whose opinion I can trust on anything, nor someone with whom I’d even get into a discussion with.

I wish you luck in your recovery.
Back to top

amother




Navy


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 3:58 pm
Fox wrote:
I wish you luck in your recovery.

[personal attack removed and amother is no longer allowed to post anonymously in the politics section]
Back to top

simcha2




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:01 pm
ectomorph wrote:
Being afraid of a dangerous idea like national socialism (ie Nazi ism - where the word Nazi. Comes from) is highly intelligent.

Fox, I wish I had your way with words and sources.


This is a perfect example of fear mongering.

I'm not making a value judgement on socialism one way or another.

But equating what is being passed as socialism by the right (universal healthcare etc.) as Nazism is ridiculous. The economic promise that Hitler offered the masses (again not a value judgement) isn't in general what people are referring to when they say Nazism.

Godwin's law.
Back to top

simcha2




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:05 pm
Quote:
This is what I find most fear-inducing . . . most of us didn't.


I'd love to see some examples of the language you are referring to.

But, if you are correct, and didn't notice with Obama, is it so crazy to imagine that you are not aware of it from Trump (even more so as a Trump supporter)?
Back to top

roses




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:18 pm
amother wrote:
Someone who thinks that Trump is smart is not someone whose opinion I can trust on anything, nor someone with whom I’d even get into a discussion with.


This is actually the most intelligent thing I've read on Imamother in a very long time. Thank you for this.
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:24 pm
simcha2 wrote:
But, if you are correct, and didn't notice with Obama, is it so crazy to imagine that you are not aware of it from Trump (even more so as a Trump supporter)?

On the contrary, my question is why so many people never noticed or made excuses for Obama -- even to the end of his second term -- and are yet so hypersensitive to everything Trump says.

Amother Navy wrote:
You know, for a woman who seems so intelligent and educated, you sure become totally irrational and slightly crazed about anything that’s anti-Trump. You might want to ask yourself why that is.

Oh, it's not the topic of President Trump that makes me crazed. It's the fact that you seem proud of your closed-mindedness.

You're the one claiming that you wouldn't even have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you politically, not me. When it comes to total irrationality and slight craziness, I can't pretend to compete with that.
Back to top

ectomorph




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:26 pm
amother wrote:
You know, for a woman who seems so intelligent and educated, you sure become totally irrational and slightly crazed about anything that’s anti-Trump. You might want to ask yourself why that is.

You seem crazed by trump. Why can't you admit that it takes smarts to become president of the USA? It's not like there's a shortage of candidates.
Back to top

amother




Navy


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:27 pm
Thinking that Trump is smart is not a political disagreement. It’s being so far removed from reality that it’s useless and a waste of everyone’s time to even engage.
Back to top

amother




Navy


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:28 pm
ectomorph wrote:
You seem crazed by trump. Why can't you admit that it takes smarts to become president of the USA? It's not like there's a shortage of candidates.

What exactly makes me seem crazed? Because I said he’s not smart? LOL.
Back to top

Squishy




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:31 pm
imasoftov wrote:
OK, I'll paste what I said in the other thread.

While in high school she "won second prize in the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair with a microbiology research project on the effect of antioxidants on the lifespan of the nematode C. elegans" and "took part in the National Hispanic Institute's Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session". She went to Boston Universtiy where she had a fellowship, and "served as an intern in the immigration office during the final year of U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy's tenure", she graduated come laude.

In addition to working as a bartender and a waitress, she "launched Brook Avenue Press, a publishing firm for books that portray the Bronx in a positive light", "worked as lead educational strategist at GAGEis, Inc", and "worked for the nonprofit National Hispanic Institute (NHI)"

All quotes and other resume-worthy items are from wikipedia, each is footnoted.

I also am curious of your disdain for blue-collar workers, or perhaps only those in food service. Do you have an equally low opinion of Jews who work in similar jobs?


I all curious as to your reliance on wikipedia. Is this always reliable or only when it supports your position?

According to Wikipedia - your reliable source. Bartending is a pink collar worker.

I disdain stupid people with no experience setting policy for potential presidential nominees.

I disdain stupid people who say the world will end in 12 years. Goodness gracious me.
Back to top

simcha2




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:34 pm
Quote:
On the contrary, my question is why so many people never noticed or made excuses for Obama -- even to the end of his second term -- and are yet so hypersensitive to everything Trump says.


As I've said, I'd love to see the language to which you are referring.

Not so sensitive to what Trump says. But his playing to fears is not subtle. It's right out there. His language is purposefully inflammatory. He continually conflates issues to make them fearful. And it works.

How many threads have been started on this forum with a cry of fear and hyperbole?
Back to top

Fox




 
 
 


Post  Wed, Feb 20 2019, 4:36 pm
Honestly, it's a bit of a moot point whether President Trump is "smart" or not. When Presidential IQs are estimated, one of the top handful is always President Carter. While IQ scores are only one measure of intelligence, certainly his academic and military career suggests that he was very, very intelligent. But as we know, his presidency wasn't exactly a stunning success.

Most professions or complex roles require a certain level of intelligence in order to do the job at all. But if an individual has that basic level of intelligence, being "smarter" doesn't necessarily confer added advantage.

The IQ level needed to do the job of President would appear to be approximately 120-130. But once you hit that level, being extra-smart doesn't necessarily make you a better President.

And that's why I find it so ridiculous when people claim that Trump "isn't smart." I'm pretty confident his IQ would measure out at 120+ -- so whether it's actually 121 or 160 isn't really relevant.
Back to top
Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  Last >> Recent Topics

Page 2 of 5 View latest: 24h 48h 72h


Post new topic       Forum -> In the News -> Politics

Related Topics Replies Last Post
So what do you think of the Noam party?
by Rappel
79 Wed, Aug 14 2019, 9:07 am View last post
Help me think of an example..... 11 Sun, Aug 11 2019, 8:05 pm View last post
I'll ask a Rav but- what do you think?
by amother
13 Fri, Aug 09 2019, 1:25 pm View last post
What did u think of eliana Cohen campaign
by amother
33 Tue, Jul 30 2019, 8:44 am View last post
The deer here think that they own the road. 37 Thu, Jul 18 2019, 9:26 am View last post

Jump to: